1 / 51

Asset Management An Expanded Team Effort Since November 2005

Asset Management An Expanded Team Effort Since November 2005. Making Progress at ODOT Update for Asset Management Steering Committee September 29, 2009. Our Agenda. Review – Where we’ve been Status – Where we are now Next Steps – Where we need to go next Issues Possible solutions

coyne
Télécharger la présentation

Asset Management An Expanded Team Effort Since November 2005

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Asset Management An Expanded Team Effort Since November 2005 Making Progress at ODOTUpdate for Asset Management Steering CommitteeSeptember 29, 2009

  2. Our Agenda • Review – Where we’ve been • Status – Where we are now • Next Steps – Where we need to go next • Issues • Possible solutions • Discussion and decision

  3. Asset Management Providing the right information to the right people at the right time for lifecycle management of transportation assets

  4. Asset Management Timeline • 1990’s – OTMS in response to ISTEA (1991) • Infrastructure for seven major systems in various stages of development by 1996 • 2005 – Strategic plan for more comprehensive program adopted • 2005 – Prioritized assets and assessments • November 2005 – Agreement signed for pilot effort • 2006 – Year of the pilot • Asset data from 4 highway segments (75+ mi) within District 3 • Statewide perspective on data – need?, get?, integrate?, tools?, who?, implementation?

  5. Timeline, continued • January 2007 - Draft Report on the Pilot • Recommendations for statewide efforts to build capacities • 2007 Tech Services Asset Mgmt Task Force established • July 2007 - Asset Management Integration Section created • 2007 – Inventory work plans developed based on pilot recommendations • Data Collection: Signs; Traffic Barriers; Bike Facilities; Sidewalks; Retaining Walls; Culverts

  6. Timeline, continued • 2008 – Sustain efforts and build for additional: • Data collection continues; prep for other assets • Communication: Circuit Ride; Inside ODOT; web; conferences; webinars • 2009 – Making data more accessible • Working for solutions and reporting: Data Warehouse, FACS/STIP Tool & TransInfo efforts; network speeds & optimization • 2009 – Yet to come • Governance must reflect movement from planning to implementation

  7. A Year Ago….. • We were • Working on and completing inventory plan • Getting ready to tour the regions • Waiting for signs data warehouse project to begin • Developing requirements and contract for TransInfo • Individual asset data owners were the sole source for reporting

  8. 2007 Plan for Building Asset Inventory • Resourced Efforts: • Sustain the “green:” • Bridges • Pavements • ITS Sites • Basic Inventory statewide by Oct. 2008: • Retaining Walls • Culverts • Traffic Barriers • Signs • Basic Inventory by July 2008 • Bike/Ped. Facilities

  9. Progress Made on Inventory Project started August 2008 – Complete (or almost): R1 & R3; Started: R2 & R4 (est. @ 40-45%)

  10. Circuit Ride & Communications • Inside ODOT • Monthly articles since Summer 2008 • Visits to all regions began October 2008 • Project Delivery and Tech Center teams and staff • Maintenance teams and staff • Purpose • Update and inform • Dialogue about AM, future efforts, how it could help and how we could collaborate

  11. Findings & Constant Comments • Gaps in knowledge of available data or appropriate sources • Accessibility significant issue • Interest in data • Culverts, approaches, environmental, etc. • Network speeds an impediment in more places than you might think • Interest in how efforts impact and/or benefit field staff • Want to be involved, “at the table”

  12. Sign Data Warehouse Project • Data Warehouse tools used to join data from • ITIS • Multiple district sign databases • R4 unable to participate (Cartegraph) • Developed initial reporting needs to improve data • Enabled systematic data corrections • Preparing sign data for integration into future TransInfo module • Useful tool to prepare other asset data • Effort has enhanced team’s understanding of data

  13. TransInfo – “The Great Integrator” • Replace ITIS & Features Inventory systems with a consolidated system used to enter & maintain data about linear assets. • Exor Corporation has been selected to provide the COTS package • Increases in quality control make it easier to manage data & generate reports. • Define transportation GIS network locations for state highways. • Establish foundation for future Asset Management projects.

  14. TransInfo – Steps • Map current work processes to validate requirements • Contractor began work May 2009 • Built network types – highway, route, segment, crew & expense account • Building prototype system • Determining best practices for new system • Identification of issues/preliminary data decisions • Extracting data from ITIS & loading into prototype • Stakeholder meetings – 4 meeting held to date • TransInfo moved to production October 2010

  15. Future Benefits to ODOT • Upon TransInfo implementation: • Establishes foundation for standardizing statewide highway data • Increase the ease and accuracy of reporting • Ability to analyze layers of spatial data allowing for proactive approach to project management • Efficient use of limited budget and resources

  16. Tools for Data Collection • Manuals document definitions, methods and tools • TDD and Tech Services working together to create pool of tools : • GeoXT’s • Laptops • Some new ones acquired • Surplus also on hold for deployment • Ron Singh – point person • Next steps • Coordination and applications – a must for data that can be integrated and used by others • Ad hoc team formed in August

  17. Tools for Reporting Data • FACS-STIP Tool • Recognized need to make asset data easily accessible • Phased process to improve upon STIP Scoping Tool – completed or underway: • WOC 1: Master Plan • WOC 2: Current desktop application to web • WOC 3: Requirements for Asset Data to Go • WOC 4: Building beta version-Asset Data To Go

  18. Breaking Down Data Barriers

  19. FACS-STIP Tool The Overall Concept: • Current tool to web • Expand data availability • Populate forms • Additional tables allow for appended data through phases (updated maps) • Mobility option - “data to go” • Regular e-mail notifications to asset owners will enable completion of data cycle

  20. FACS/STIP Tool Diagram E-mail Notifications Regarding Changes (on some regular cycle) Accessible Quantities of Additional Information Available for All Maps & Reports Change Reports Data To Go Arc Server Laptop Version Application Check-In/Check-Out Process Updates via the web New FACS/STIP Application Populated Electonic or Paper Forms Management System Desktop Version Management System Check-out Check-in Process Spatial Data Engine Feature Manipulation Engine Data-Filled STIP Scoping Forms Management System Geo Database Corporate GIS Database Appended Additions & Changes New Additional Layers Misc.Files

  21. FACS-STIP Timeline • Aggressive schedule! (fingers still crossed) • June: Three WOCs delivered - Master project plan, desktop application moved to web, requirements for Asset Data To Go • July: Built Asset Data To Go • August: Building and beta testing - Field use & comments • September: Application adjustments • October: Statewide training • November: Ready for scoping • Ongoing: Additional data & updates (web application makes this efficient) • Other opportunities • Factored in 1R Program requirements (Roadside Inventory) • Ready to help with MS4 Permit requirements

  22. FACS-STIP Tool – Landing Page

  23. The FACS-STIP Tool provides asset data to ODOT Staff in a simple-to-use Web Interface. It also provides on-line tools to promote communication using a map reference or convenient spreadsheet export.

  24. Asset “Data to Go” Wizard

  25. Asset “Data to Go” Report

  26. FACS-STIP Tool Feedback • Fixes & enhancements (WOC 4): • Emphasis is on fixing known defects • Highest priorities for follow-up before roll-out: • Reformat Excel export product • Map option to select Area of Interest • Print map option for scoping packets • Highest priorities for future enhancements: • Expand comment feature to capture additional asset information • Ties to other GIS-based efforts, i.e., EDMS

  27. FACS-STIP Tool ROW-GIS & FileNet EDMS Sweet, Suite of Tools Complimentary efforts to provide data that is of interest

  28. Asset Management – Other Key Interfaces • 1R Program • HB 2001 • Practical Design • Financial Reporting

  29. 1R Program Pave Mainly – Can’t Make Any Safety Features Worse Statewide Strategic Approach to Highway Features Normally Upgraded by 3R Projects Asset Inventories Needed for Strategic Approach $6 M 1R Safety Fund for Traffic Barrier Upgrades Essential to Maintain Data in Asset Inventories 1R Roadside Inventories – October 2009 The 1R Program supports a strategic approach for managing ODOT assets…

  30. 1R Roadside Inventory ADA Ramps Bicycle Facilities Bridges Culverts Sidewalks Traffic Barriers Signs Traffic and Safety Data Special Problems – Clear Zone Hazards

  31. Practical Design Design Practices that use Flexibility in the Application of Standards to Reduce Cost While Preserving and Enhancing Safety and Mobility Mandated by HB 2001 – Report to Legislature by Nov 10 1R Program is a Key Element 2R Program Being Considered Where Some Safety & ADA Features may be Included in Projects Asset Inventories will be used to Conduct Project Scoping and Allow for Informed Decisions Practical Design will use Asset Inventories for Decision Making …

  32. Financial Reporting • FSB - for ODOT: • Prepares ODOT Financial Statement • Submits financial information to DAS for State of Oregon report (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report or “CAFR”) • Standards must be complied with • Several levels of review and accountability • Includes DAS, Secretary of State, FHWA and other outside governing bodies • Compliance ensures • Good rating for bond issuance • Continued receipt of federal funds and grants

  33. Financial Reporting Challenges • Many folks involved in ODOT’s largest assets • Highways • Structures • Land • Current processes, systems and organizational structure make tracking difficult and compromise data integrity • Make compliance with reporting standards a significant challenge

  34. Financial Reporting – Musts to Solve • Audit findings result in requirements for better lifecycle tracking • Estimates from TRANS*PRT and actuals from CPS and TEAMS • Landing “on the books” • Valuing (capitalizing) new – capturing all project outcomes and cost • Activities that extend useful life - capturing significant maintenance activities and cost • Depreciating or retiring assets • Removing the value on the books for disposed assets

  35. Moving Forward Things to consider; things to solve….

  36. Patterns for Readiness • Building methodology to improve decisions and awareness based on: • Levels of informed decisions • Basic inventory and beyond • Inspection and update cycles • Asset location methods and tools • Standards key for data quality and integration • Experience with data (“sandbox”) • Field experience before inventory • Using data before system • Just guessing system requirements without it

  37. TransInfo Readiness Considerations • Asset priority • TransInfo candidate? • Good things to do to be ready for migration to TransInfo • General • Location data standards • Asset specific • Asset data standards • Metadata • Established governance structure • Data warehouse effort to improve data quality • ITIS with multiple sources or single database

  38. Potential TransInfo Queue • Signs • Storm Water • Retaining Walls • Sound Barriers • CHAMPS • Interchanges • Intersections • ITS Equipment • Right of Way • Traffic Structures • Decisions based on: • Risk • Priority • Readiness

  39. Asset Management – Issues & Barriers • Networks & impacts on speeds • Universal knowledge of data availability and sources • Organizational readiness to support enterprise data • Issues of trust • Regions/Salem perceptions • Updating data • Data governance • Standards do not necessarily spawn compliance • Forums for discussion – broader input • Key in order to make inroads on above (orange)

  40. Issues & Barriers - Others • Data Warehouse – Sign Data Project • Process requires plan for follow-through • Want/need to sustain progress • Statewide data • Ready to migrate data to TransInfo • Fragmented jurisdiction and responsibilities made consistent and sustained effort a challenge • Data updates inconsistent • Network or application issues • Resource issues • Inconsistent buy in or expectations

  41. Network Speeds/Optimization • Slow network and/or application response times impede pace of business in many ODOT offices • Major factors include network topology; applications; equipment compatibilities & business processes (how data is shared) • Team assembled (includes IS and Business) to • Pinpoint issues • Assess options • Develop strategies where options exist

  42. Network Speeds, continued • Challenges • Cost; SDC; regional or city capacities for higher speeds; lack of options; necessary applications (MMS ATC, GIS, MSProject) • Corrective Action • Collaboration with SDC • Network band-width upgrade project • Identifying & prioritizing other possible improvements

  43. Other Issues to Solve • Active engagement of region staff • Asset data and priorities • Updating and reporting data • Data governance • Standards • Tools for collecting • Cross-functional/cross-asset conversations • Forum for routine communications and decisions • Process for understanding readiness in relation to needs for systems work

  44. Filling Void for Signs • Recruited SAM-IT • Members: • David Smith, R1 • Ramona Cline, R2 • Randy Camp, R3 • Pat Creedican, R4 • Mike Barry, R5 • Joel Fry, Maintenance & Operations • Scott King, AMI • ???, Tech Services (Dave Greenberg/Greg Stellmach?) • ???, IS/GIS

  45. SAM-IT: Ensure sign data readiness to migrate to statewide system Approve recommendations Ensure resources for follow-through Develop requirements for TransInfo Sign Module SAM: Ensure sign data readiness to migrate to statewide system Prioritize issues Develop recommendations Review and comment on draft requirements for TransInfo Sign Module SAM-IT vs. SAM Committee Role

  46. Too Many Assets • Limitations of asset-specific committees • Would result in too many committees • Does not develop cross-asset decision making While SAM-IT solves an immediate need, long-term, the solution should be painted with a broader brush

  47. Next Stage • Asset Management Implementation Leadership Team • Involve Regions and other divisions • Look for ties to other leadership or management teams • Develop processes to ensure broader input • Ties to other teams and committees whenever possible • Concept already tested initially with RLT

  48. Asset Management - Implementation Leadership Team Membership: • AMI Manager • Region Tech Center Rep (SD?) • Region Maintenance Rep (KK?) • Construction Rep • Area Manager Rep • AM Task Force Rep (PW) • AM Task Force Rep (SL) • Financial Services (JM/KK) • Planning Rep • Information Systems Rep • Motor Carrier Rep • Transportation Data Rep Responsibilities: • Communication • Advocate • Accountability • Resource Support for Recommendations: • Data Governance • Priorities: • Inventory • Data Systems • Tools • Issue ID & Resolution Possibility?

  49. System Initiatives & Maintenance • Current challenges • Prioritization processes exist, but multiple sources still leave questions • Business readiness can be difficult to understand • RFW’s not always used just for maintenance • Potential solution is in creating a team to build single prioritization process

  50. QUESTIONS? DISCUSSION?

More Related